There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by consciencious observer

Originally posted by stmichael
ok ,you already have experience of a one world government, its called united nations, what happened when countries wanted to go to war in Iraq they was told NO, it still happened, that is the danger.



and instead of a few telling them no it should be thee entire populace( 6 billion of us and counting) and besides if we to truly become one world then there will be no reason for fighting because territory will no longer exist. people will be free to sit, to build, to sleep where ever they choose as long as it doesn't completely destroy nature in the process


There will be many reasons to fight:

1), Water: drought in one area will cause other areas restrictions

2)food - last year was the first year the world did not produce an excess of food. They was no surplus. So rationing and redistribution could cause conflict.

3)electricity -one community uses too much, another community has none...conflict

4) oil-not enough to go around with new markets on every continent? Conflict?




posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
Just because the rest of the world does not have what we have, we do not have to stop everything reorganize and hand it over. They need to build it.


This seems to me to be an arrogant and narrow-minded assertion. By definition, Ethnocentrism.


Ethnocentrism, the feeling that one's group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups. It is coupled with a generalized contempt for members of other groups.
www.reference.com...

The fatal flaw in your assertion assumes the rest of the world envies America or the American way of life. Although some third-world nations might, I think the vast majority of other civilized nations do not. You further incorrectly assume that other countries / cultures have made no worthy contributions to mankind. I suggest you consider the international contributions of art, music, sports, medicine and science to name a few. Perhaps you confuse military superiority and heavy-handed dominance with the contributions of our global neighbors.

Perhaps Common Sense had the day off.

Regards...KK

[edit on 5-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Yea, "War would End" ...and "Eugenics" and the Rockerfeller Human Genome Project would start on a global scale... and you are either very naive or on their payroll!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
What a profoundly ignorant and terrifying proposition this thread supposes.

A single supreme authority governing the entire populace and planet simply begs the question of why not a single supreme ruler ? A single world government spells the absolute death of all that is great - the intriuge of humanity, culture obliterated, customs, cultures, variation and all that makes us unique and wonderfull.

The prospect of simplistic resolutions through the removal of differing opinions is fascism in the most extreme. To suppose that a single world means some harmonious utopia IMPLICITY requires that all cultural values, vageries and differences, exactly that which makes us human, be put aside for the preference of a single identity which we all must abandon our self identity for.

A thoroughly dangerous, stupid, and overall repugnant thought on every level.

Please consider your insignficiant understanding of history,politics and society in general when posting - as this is deeply concerning example of what happens when morons post.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Everything I'd say has already been said, so Ill cut short, are you well represented in your country? How about when one world president listens to your representatives? Will they care about your pitiful little region?

Dont you care about your culture? Im all for togetherness but diversity is a must. Without that this site would be a bunch of idiots agreeing with eachother. Boooring. I like hearing opinions opposite of mine. I like other perspectives.

Like someone said your utopia would be great, if I ran it it would be flawless, but whos going to take control? Those in control, and they aint doing such a bang-up job!



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas
A single supreme authority governing the entire populace and planet simply begs the question of why not a single supreme ruler ?


No one has stretched the supposition to include a "single" ruler except perhaps yourself. I've read no defense of dictatorship or divine rule. It's a streeeeeeetch. Audacious. You are making a false assumption. Presupposition like "Do you still beat your wife."


as this is deeply concerning example of what happens when morons post.

Nice veiled insult. Please read the definition of ethnocentrism I posted earlier for the benefit of the uninformed.

BTW, I service what I sell.

KK

Regards.......KK

[edit on 6-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hashishian
reply to post by depmode21
 


looks as though DEPMODE21 the OP is another shill...brand new account and it seems as though he has been posting this article on Godlike and Yahoo.
..or he just plagiarized it... cut and paste like the Bootlickers do..

just another disinfo agent trying to cull the herd...

TPTB are already horrible please tell me how giving them more power would do any good at all.. they start all wars, they start all pandemics, they crashed the economy on purpose or by plan, overpopulation is a farce...
... do I really need to go on...

"if Freedom were Outlawed, would You be an Outlaw...??"
Hashishian




culling the herd like the "wraith" on stargate atlantis ?



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
A one world government is the worst case scenario for any person who want his or her own control over his or her destiny.


And from the beginning of time this was best done in the smallest unit possible. The first organized group with rules is the family. When populations began to cluster for the benefit of all, communities were formed. The smallest form of governing is always the best. In the smallest form, it is was easier to get things done that directly affect the people in the group.

The larger the group gets the more difficult it is for the individual to have his our her rights held in esteem.

A one world government destroys sovereignty. To be sovereign over something means to be able to make the decisions that are best for it, because you are the one who lives there.

War would not end, because people would find other ways to organize themselves into groups and would always disagree about something, supreme global leader or not. A war can be fought with fire and rocks even if all weapons are destroyed, people will always find ways to fight and defend.

I hope you see some counters to you strange one world government...small local government is what we want.


I agree with you that one government is no the way to go, but not with the arguments.
Small units etcetera will not work. The point lies in the line drawing. Who decides what a unit is. The people off a....what? People do not agree...period, they don't. And they always want more. Are you going to tell them that they have to stop wanting, to stop desiring to eat from your plate, sleep with your wife. No you don't. We are a unmanageable lot. That is the reason all powercrazy rich folks want to control the masses. Because they consider the masses to be crazy and stupid. They call it "helping them".

One government, lots of governments. Same difference. People do not agree, see this thread.

So what is going to change the world? Reason won't help, the mind won't help, the mind is one of the reasons of the mess we are in. We will have to become more aware, more conscious, and watch with our hearts. Perception has to develop into the wider vibrational spectrum. Releasing from our chains of want and desires is more necessary then ever. Stop wanting, prepare to have nothing and share and survive without killing each other. The only way to be free is stop believing the reality that is given to you and forces you to join this madness.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by depmode21
 


These posts from depmode21 are straight from the Satanic Bible. World control by one political entity ELIMINATES : 1. Freedom 2. Diversity 3. Freedom to be different. 4. Freedom of Choice 5. Bill of Rights 6. Freedom of Religion and civic associations. 7. Freedom to pursue any form of honorable economic endeavor. And the list goes on.

Want to know about communism? Go to Cuba and just look around! Ask questions. Oh wait, can't ask sensetive questions; oh it must be for the common good right? Desires like this are from those who wish not to compete nor risk time, talents, fortune!
True communism was tried during the time of Christ and immediately after his resurrection(check the scriptures) and it didn't work out well.

People are not, repeat are not created equal. We are all unique and different. Different capacities to learn, earn, teach, produce, give and take. Destroy this and the human race is destroyed!!

Do not decide what's good for me bucko! I'll decide for myself. And if I fail, then it's my problem isn't it? If I win, well then I'll reap the rewards and not necessarily share my profits with you!!!

Get you stupid head out of your sandy bottom areas!



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Somebody needs to read 1984...

I used to believe in a world government too, when I was like 16. This was before I gained a decent perspective on history and human nature. Back then, I used to think leaders were actually leaders, and politcians were actually ideological rivals - And that Bill Clinton was a good person.

No wars. lol.

There will always be an enemy that is what unites large empires and allows them to function. Humans simply aren't altruistic enough to go along otherwise. The Romans had the "savage barbarians' we had the 'british' the 'indians' the 'mexicans' the 'russians' and now the 'terrorists'. Under OWG it would be 'the rebels' or the 'CTs'... both of which had probably already been wiped out ages ago.

These are the same people that lied and brought us into Iraq and Afghanistan. If there is no enemy to occupy our mind they will invent one out of thin air. The bankers and the mainstream media and the government all sit at the same table and they've been lying to us. We are just cattle to them. We are lessers. The class system still exists, you just don't see it until you've dealt with it. But we STILL have the freedom to leave it behind and go to another nation if we have trouble with the oligarchy in one. And this is what we must fight to protect. But you can only run fo so long nowadays...

Back to the fictional enemies; most would believe it, too, given the inherent credibility of the government with people such as yourself. Believe it or not, throughout history the government has been at least the top 10 killer of humans. With purges, and jails, starvations, taxes and abused authority. The fact that we have free government is a rarity within the historical spectrum. There have been very few free nations in all of history.

What in God's name makes you think humanity has advanced enough for a OWG to be desirable?

Also of note: The Republican and democratic parties are just a matter of divide and conquer. They are lying to, and misleading both sides. Carbon caused Global Warming doesn't exist, neither does an "international Global terrorist network". In cases where it has been shown in effect, it has been funded by these people. (Operation Cyclone, and numerous studies fund by the RAND corporation and the rockefellers) They use the MSM and the office of the US government ot get their propagand out. Eiserhower warned of this. Until the global war on terrorism, the United States constitution had been a sticking point for these OWG types. Now they're quickly chewing through it and coming for our guns.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DarrylGalasso
 


If you read and I assume you do the original source was from a book published by an Austrian that fled Nazi Germany and was an anarchist by the name of Leopold kohr, his famous book published in I think 1951 was called "Breakdown of Nations", he actually thought nations that were too large like China or Russia or Germany were teh main cause of war and misery and that a strong states rights philosophy as exists in the US but has sadly been very battered as of lately was the antidote to the disease of war and misery, etc.

Here's another link to the book online...BreakdownofNations



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by depmode21
 


Will the unicorns return? Will leprechauns give up their gold? Will dogs and cats sleep together?

Your rosy picture didn't include those.

Control over the lives of the populace will increase, hell, it's already increasing. People in formerly free countries such as the United States will be subject to the ridiculous laws of other former countries. It's not a good thing, by a long shot. The world will be turned into a 2nd world # hole while the bankers live it up at the top on the labors of those beneath them. There will be no way to move up unless you are born into the upper echelon of society.



posted on Apr, 8 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by depmode21
Hello guys,

I've been lurking these boards for a few weeks now and it seems there is a lot of hysteria going on here.

Well, kinda lurking:

Recent posts in last 180 days of activity from depmode21 (250 Max)

Thread Title Replies Post Date

1 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 07:12 AM

2 Seriously, would a ONE World Government be THAT bad? 38 3-4-2009 @ 06:59 AM

3 Seriously, would a ONE World Government be THAT bad? 38 3-4-2009 @ 06:58 AM

4 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 06:53 AM

5 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 06:47 AM

6 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 06:32 AM

7 Seriously, would a ONE World Government be THAT bad? 38 3-4-2009 @ 06:19 AM

8 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 06:07 AM

9 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 06:03 AM

10 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009 @ 05:51 AM

11 There is nothing wrong with a One-World Government 71 3-4-2009


seriously stop feeding the troll guys



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
you really need to go back to listening to depeche mode. leave political discussion to folks that stopped smoking weed! living in so cal, i dont want any one world govt running anything, but it feels like a one world government is already taking place because out here we're overrun with 'illegals' and the friggin' mexicans are on every street corner! what we need is human sized tee's and a big goalpost and start drop-kicking 'em over the fence!!!!!!!hehehe!!!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The people with the power will become more and more hungry. So, it will all fall apart there will be more poverty people will become like slaves doing what they want them to do. Millions maybe billions will be starving because the government want power and will control everything, it will not work out look at every event where one source had power: death, poverty, cruelty it will be all bad.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
wow sound good were did you get all the info from saying all that stuff would happen when the NWO take over, we should of just let hilter take over the world if we didnt fight back we would not of had a war and thats what the NWO is all about taking over the world with as little fuss as possible



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The war would of happened anyway. It was planned between 1850 to 1871 by Albert Pike in conceptional terms and quantified by the Illuminati over the next few generations. Wall Street funded Hitler to start the war in 1928. The purpose of war is to increase economic control and reduce the population in a short period of time.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Hmmm, yes very good!

While I think it is highly unlikely that wars will end if this so called "New World Order" comes to power, what I always fail to grasp is how they will retain control?

Authoritarian governments has historically always be overthrown, and the one's that are still lingering on are having a hard time. You only have to look at what has been happening in Iran recently.

One could reply that all insurgents will be rounded up with the help of the patriot act. This could almost be seen as a fool proof plan, that is until you see what is happening in afghanistan, both us and the american's are having a very difficult time of rounding up a few bloke living in caves. Once you apply that same stratagy you your own country you'd have to agree that this so called NWO would have much of the same problems, made worse by fighting well educated and fed westerners.

Of course I've seen many americans talk about what happens if they take your cherished guns off you? Well I myself live in the UK where we do not allow guns unless your a farmer. We still have an awful lot of gun crime. Infact i could nodoubt get a firearm if I wanted.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
You know what? I'm not opposed to a Federation that is Global.

But I think most of what you wrote OP is pure unadulterated horse poop.

War wouldn't end. It would merely become something different. It's be corporate, or criminal, or terroist/guerilla action.

A Federation or even a tyranny will not get rid of religious extremism. Indeed it might exacerbate it for many hundreds of years. "you have not converted a man merely because you have silenced him."

Violence wil not be gone. That's just ridiculous. You think that the men who believe that it is their right to murder their wives because they are feeeling paranoid are going to go away enmasse? This alone is the work of multiple generations of change.

Population control will in and of itself cause mass unrest. Dissenters would be marginalized, and feed further extremism. This would be the new War. Make no mistake, not every country is China and what "worked" in their draconian method is based on five thousand years of cultural prep.



What you describe is not reality as a system of global governanace would work. Ever.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
You know what? I'm not opposed to a Federation that is Global.

But I think most of what you wrote OP is pure unadulterated horse poop.

War wouldn't end. It would merely become something different. It's be corporate, or criminal, or terroist/guerilla action.

A Federation or even a tyranny will not get rid of religious extremism. Indeed it might exacerbate it for many hundreds of years. "you have not converted a man merely because you have silenced him."

Violence wil not be gone. That's just ridiculous. You think that the men who believe that it is their right to murder their wives because they are feeeling paranoid are going to go away enmasse? This alone is the work of multiple generations of change.

Population control will in and of itself cause mass unrest. Dissenters would be marginalized, and feed further extremism. This would be the new War. Make no mistake, not every country is China and what "worked" in their draconian method is based on five thousand years of cultural prep.



What you describe is not reality as a system of global governanace would work. Ever.





new topics
 
34
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join